I think the interesting bit is that the object is "find out what these characters will make of their world" but the instruction is "play like real people."

Of course, I find all this interesting/thought-inspiring, and almost hate to say more 'cause developing the object of the game is obviously useful and I want to see where Vincent is going.

But I can't resist - some other thoughts, partially to see if I'm actually following along. Vincent/anyone, does any of this seem off?

No matter what the text does or doesn't directly say about the object of the game, most play will have one, and the text MATTERS for that (thus, DESIGNED object, no matter if it's intentional or not).

All players don't need to have their attention on the object of the game at all times, which is pretty cool (except when it isn't). But a game design is more useful when it helps players pursue the object, and often that means one/some/all players should have the object of the game in mind. In any case, they need that and/or other game-tools to help (in the right, not-too-easy way) with pursuing the object.

The "object of play" and the "object of the game" are actually distinct things, maybe? Or at least I can see stuff about the "reason" for play creeping into the "object" of play that, even if it does fit there, should NOT creep into the object of the game.